Monday, 28 April 2014

Most of the major trade unions in Scotland have
adopted a positive and sensible approach to the referendum, as have the STUC.
This year’s Congress was a real debate conducted in the best spirit of trade
union principles – and contrasts significantly with the chaotic contribution of
the Confederation of British Industry. I
accept the right of some individual trade unions and the STUC to adopt a
position of challenging both sides , whilst welcoming those unions and branches
that support a Yes vote.

However todays Communication Workers Union UK Conference
decision is disappointing as they have gone down the same cul de sac as the GMB
in that their leadership have imposed a line without consultation in exactly the
same way as the CBI did – to support a No vote without consulting any of their
members.

The consequences for those trade unions are yet to
be seen, but I have heard that individual members are unhappy about a basic
tenet of democracy being ignored, and would have wanted to be consulted on this
most important of issues – the future direction of our country and the role their
trade union intends to take in the campaign. It’s their subscriptions from
their hard earned wages which underwrites any campaigning and the leadership “we
know best” approach is hardly a 21st century approach to politics.

So it proved for the CBI - registering of CBI for
the No campaign without the basic requisite of consulting its own members was
only going to have one effect.Resignations.Another part of this however, begs the
question as to why so many public bodies were members in the first place.

At the STUC Congress, correctly, the decision was
taken to challenge both sides.This was
a genuine engagement, and any trade union who has engaged with their members
properly will tell you, that whilst they may have an individual view, they wish
the trade union to challenge both sides – exactly the course taken by PCS.

These recent events leave the decision taken by
the Communication Workers Union , all the more baffling.Already on social media, CWU members are
signalling their resignations, in what was described only a few weeks ago by the
Sunday Herald as a “sham consultation”.Whilst I would never encourage any member to resign, the feeling of
being ignored and not consulted is an anti-democratic practice, which, given
the importance of the decision is indefensible.

The approaches all organisations take in this
debate, have consequences no matter the result.Organisations which have taken a view without consultation may very well
find after the 18th September that they are left behind in
determining the next steps on Scotland’s future, due to mistrust, and a feeling
that they do not represent the interests of those they claim to.This calls for open, transparent, and democratic
processes – for the sake of their members who deserve better. After all – who would
have ever imagined that the CBI and some trade unions would have something in
common ?

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

Sometimes it’s actually possible to feel very sorry
for Scottish Labour Party leaders – tonight it was Johann Lamont’s turn to try
and defend the indefensible. The position of the Labour party in Scotland has,
since the mid-seventies, been reminiscent of Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow. A long bloody struggle to hold a line and
eventually retreating in disarray, scattering baggage along the way. There are those who question the impartiality of
the BBC in the independence debate, but Gordon Brewer’s forensic, detailed
questioning of Lamont on Newsnight Scotland tonight exposed the fundamental
contradictions at the heart of Scottish Labour.

With a few honourable exceptions, the Labour party
in Scotland has regarded devolution and the granting of more powers to Scotland
as a war of attrition – concessions reluctantly made in the face of nationalist
advance, but designed to halt any progress towards full independence, rather
than a positive choice to empower and let go of Westminster control.

Every advance towards self-determination for
Scotland has been made reluctantly – yes, devolution was enacted by New Labour,
but only after a second vote (as if the 1997 Labour manifesto wasn’t really
serious) and explicitly promoted as a way to “kill nationalism stone dead”.

From the Hamilton by-election onwards, Scottish Labour
has been profoundly disturbed by the notion that anyone other than themselves
can represent the Scottish people. Their sense of outrage has only increased
over the years, leading to the dismal tribal tenor of what passes for their debate
in the run-up to the referendum.

What was exposed tonight was the total incoherence
of the Scottish Labour position – do we really think that a further set of “a
wee bit more “ devo proposals would have been forthcoming if it wasn’t for the
re-election of the SNP government (with a majority) and a pending referendum on
independence ? The inability of Lamont to answer whether Labour in Scotland
could set higher tax rates without reference to a Labour Chancellor of the
Exchequer cruelly exposed the fundamental misunderstanding of what real powers
for a purpose should look like. That’s if
Labour win the 2015 election – that’s the X-Factor we all are being invited to
take a gamble on. Trust us – we did such a great job of addressing inequality
the last time around.

What was announced today was the proverbial mish
mash of try and please everyone (within the Scottish Labour tribal tent) and
end up pleasing no-one. Incoherent, full of inbuilt contradictions (employment
law reserved but employment tribunals devolved) , with a vague attempt to
present as socially progressive and fiscally redistributive but taking fright
at actually stating that a future Scottish Labour administration would really
be coming for the wealthy – and in many ways, that’s Johann’s tragedy. She
probably does want to be more open about that, but can’t say so as theUK
leadership dominated by the Blairite Progress group won’t let her.

Sunday, 16 March 2014

Last weekend I visited the Plaid Cymru Spring
Conference, along with SNP Trade Union colleague Ross Cassie (pictured), and it was
probably just as well we weren’t there this Saturday after that rugby score.
However, am happy to report that despite giving Scotland one of our worst
defeats ever, our Celtic Comrades are strongly supporting us in our joint
campaign for self-determination!

This was my second visit to a Plaid event having
visited Wales six months before the 2007 election, and perhaps it is a good
omen that I was down six months before the referendum.

There is always some curiosity between Plaid and
SNP members as to why our electoral performances are so markedly different just
now.It was during this recent visit that
I began to really appreciate the scale of the task facing our Celtic Comrades.Just prior to the conference an opinion poll
showed that their one European seat is under threat in May, and astonishingly
UKIP already have an MEP for Wales.

The stark reality of the struggle hit home when I
was addressing the UNDEB (Plaid Cymru’s Trade Union section).Whilst the majority of Trade Unions in
Scotland are fairly neutral towards independence, and many individual members
are voting Yes, the feeling in Wales is that TU’s are still firmly embedded in
the Labour Party machine. It was a well-attended meeting and I do know that
there are many Plaid activists who are trade union members, but who feel that
their voices are yet to be listened to by their union leaderships. I encouraged our Plaid colleagues to keep on
arguing the case for alternatives to the Labour status quo, and promote a positive
vision as to why their political party – with democratic socialist values- is
best placed to represent them in parliament and local government.For many workers, and public sector workers
in particular, pay, terms and conditions are decided in an England and Wales context,
which also makes the case for strong local representation. The sense of frustration
at the extent of Labour led authorities in Wales implementing Coalition Cuts
without much of an attempt to alleviate or fight back was very clear, It begs the question that although there are
cuts that Labour in Scotland are implementing in the councils they run, and a
continued squeeze on terms and conditions for our members – how much worse
would it be if Holyrood was Labour led as well ?

Another major challenge, which was brought home to
me in our discussions, was the in media.In many parts of Wales, newspapers and other media are London focused,
with no Welsh editions of newspapers, and our colleagues were very upfront that
the only media coverage about Scotland’s referendum is through Westminster
based media eyes.We should appreciate
that despite the many challenges the newspaper industry face, that regardless
of their views on Independence, we have a major advantage in a Scottish based
newspaper industry and media, that covers political stories from a Scottish
angle. Not to mention the journalists and commentators who report without party
bias or favour.

We spent many enjoyable hours in the company of
the great Welsh Historian Dr John Davies, who remarked that he was quite
offended when listening to the radio where it was suggested that should
Scotland vote YES, then all that would be left of the UK is England and its “bits”
…….John didn’t take too kindly that Wales was regarded as “a bit”. Having written
the definitive history and encyclopaedia of Wales, that’s understandable – and I
was intrigued to discover that the copies of his works that are held in the
Mitchell library are from the late Edwin Morgan’s collection – both writers of international
renown.

Another curious factor, was that the coalition
with Labour from 2007 to 2011 may have electorally damaged Plaid in the short
term.Many Plaid activists feel that in
that coalition, Plaid taught Labour how to be Welsh, and to drape themselves in
the Welsh flag.

What is clear is that Plaid are supporting
Scottish independence, and that a YES vote would be a boost for more powers for
Wales.Plaid Cymru are playing, (correctly
in my view) a long game.This undermines
the solidarity against self-determination argument put out by No supporters who
keep insisting that a YES vote would be a disaster for other parts of the UK. That
argument would have more force if there weren’t alternative voices in both Wales
(and England) saying that Yes in Scotland gives an opportunity for an
alternative vision for the rest of the UK.

I really enjoyed the weekend, and strongly believe
that there are positive actions for Plaid Cymru to take forward, particularly
their trade union section. A strong values based campaign saw them
handsomely retain the Ynys Mon by-election, the party has a clear democratic
socialist vision for Wales, with a popular leader in Leanne Wood and they should
take Scotland’s advances as a clarion call for more powers leading to independence.
We should be very clear that the Yes campaign has resonance and meaning beyond
Scotland’s borders and people are looking to us to provide hope and example. I
lost count of the number of times Plaid activists told me to let everyone in
Scotland know how important it for Wales that Scotland votes Yes !

So with that – I also look forward to welcoming Plaid
activists who fancy a busman’s holiday in Scotland in September…!

Monday, 17 February 2014

“My hunch is that poking Scotland in the chest
while telling it what it can't do won't help the No's”

Billy Bragg – 12th February 2014

Considering that’s the view of a passionate,
patriotic (in the finest sense of the word) Englishman, it makes you wonder
what the reaction among voters in Scotland to George Osborne’s scolding lecture
will be in the weeks and months ahead.

The First Minister’s response this week was
measured and positive – and although many Scottish voters would be tempted to
respond “Aye do you think…” to the “No you can’t” diktat from the unionist
parties, he opted for the “Yes, we can” message.

Let’s consider Osborne’s track record as Chancellor
and credibility. He promised that the UK would keep its AAA credit rating –
failed.Reduce the deficit? – failed.We are meant to believe that Mr Osborne is omniscient
in economic matters, especially when it comes to the issue of a currency union –
and of course, he is guided by the most impartial advice the civil service can
provide. A view provided by the mandarins will inevitably incline towards
caution, as change is always suspect and the status quo is the default
preference at all times. Was the UK
Chancellor correct on this occasion? Let’s consider the report from Professor
Christine Bell of Edinburgh University.

“Legally
under international law the position is clear: if the remainder UK keeps the
name and status of the UK under international law, it keeps its liabilities for
the debt. The UK took out the debt, and legally it owes the money.
Scotland cannot therefore ‘default’. It can be argued that
international law does, however, contemplate that on dividing, the two
resulting states.”

Some economists have been making dire
predictions that Scotland ‘defaulting on the debt’ is irresponsible – and ignoring
the actual response from the Yes
campaign which is to set out a reasonable negotiating point – that if assets
aren’t to be shared, then why should liabilities? Why is a Scottish
government not allowed to its negotiate in the event of a “Yes” vote ? That, in
effect is the position of the 3 main unionist parties – to deny the right of
elected representatives to secure the best deal for Scotland in the event of a “Yes”
vote – a blatant denial of the democratic right of the Scottish people to determine
their own future. “

Just consider what has actually happened
last week –the Tories, Labour and
Lib-Dems position as articulated last week is to state clearly and
unequivocally that there will be no reasonable negotiations around our joint
economic interests in an attempt to
bludgeon voters into voting “No”.

In a nutshell, the Better Together message
boils down to – there’s no point in voting “Yes” because it’s not going to work
( because we say so) and there’s no possibility of an alternative future. There’s
no such thing as political will, there’s no point in expecting your elected
representatives to articulate and fight for the possibility of change and there’s
absolutely nothing wrong with the political and economic systems in one of the
most unequal countries in the western world. The fact that those who are
articulating the “no change” message have a personal stake in business as usual
as the system has worked very well for them (Westminster MP’s) gives them not a
moment’s pause.

I watched the first in the “Scandimania”
documentaries last night, where Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall travelled around
Norway and expect he’ll be accused of pandering to the “Yes” campaign by
showing a small successful country that’s made good use of natural and human
resources to support a society that looks fairly decent – not perfect, but
sustainable. One of the more depressing aspects of the nay-sayers is the petty sneering
at our Scandanavian neighbours whenever the prospect of a different society in
Scotland is discussed.

I fully expected the big red panic button
to be pressed in the run up to September 18th, but am curious as to
why now – presumably to halt any sense of momentum in the “yes” campaign, but
all this has done is give people time to discuss and consider why there is No
Future. The conventional wisdom is that negative always beats positive and that
fear always beats hope – that’s tired old politics and my next post will be on
how that’s the politics of self-destruction for the unionist parties in
Scotland who may find they are destroying their own hopes in order to Save the
Union. It’s still in the balance for the referendum, but voters will wonder why
in future elections should they vote for parties that are insulting their
democratic right to express an opinion, and insulting their intelligence at the
same time.

Tuesday, 11 February 2014

I’ve been meaning to blog for
a good while now on the issue of what makes a Just Scotland, as well as
reflecting on the journey many people in Scotland have made and are making from
the Labour Movement towards supporting Independence. This was very much on my
mind recently - as many of you will know, our Convener of Govan SNP, Steve
Butler, sadly passed away in December after a very short illness.

Steve was the Constituency
Officer Manager for Jim Sillars, and so when I joined the SNP on the back of
the 1988 Govan By-election and the Anti-Poll Tax campaign I got to meet him for
the first time. I was aware of his background in the trade union movement and
am proud to say he was my mentor and someone whose values I shared.

Steve became a good friend and
colleague and his contribution, and kindness to many people will never be forgotten.
A typical story about him comes from when he was covering the polling station in
Priesthill in 2011.A conversation with
the local Minister resulted in him helping to repair the church organ. He believed
in action and his many small acts of assistance were as big a contribution to
his community as a lifetime of political debate and activism.

For the wider political picture
I would recommend an interview with a
young Steve Butler from 1975 - with an equally young Christopher Hitchens
for the New Statesman, which sums up a lot of Steve’s political thoughts …………..” Steve Butler, a young shop steward from Rolls- Royce in
East Kilbride, told me why he had left the Labour Party in Glasgow and signed
up with the Nationalists (for whom he hopes to become industrial organiser).
‘Self-government would be a step towards socialism,’ he said. ‘I used to
identify with people like Foot but since they took office I’ve given them up.”

Anne McLaughlin reminded me of
this interview and has also written a very moving tribute and in blogging it
would be remiss of me not to direct you towards that at …http://indygalonindependence.blogspot.co.uk/

When
I first heard of Steve’s sudden illness, I had just attended two meetings
organised by the STUC as part of its campaign “A Just Scotland”, which is
looking at the significant challenges facing Scotland, as part of its approach
for the Referendum campaign. The comparisons with other countries as part
of this process gave plenty of food for thought.

Senior
Trade Unionists and Academics made rational and measured contributions.

Among the key findings I noted
were ;

(1) The infamous IFS report
does not suggest that an Independent Scotland would have less money to spend,
and should have compared an Independent Scotland with Scotland in the UK, and
not Scotland v the UK.

(2) More importantly,
they state that the key issue in terms of finances is one of demographics
- an issue that remains whether YES or No is successful.

(3) Income Inequality - the UK
has one of the highest gaps in Europe

(4) If all workers not in
receipt of the Living Wage, were to be paid it, there would be increased income
tax revenues of £550m.

(5) Only in 9 out of the last
69 months have real wages risen.

(6) Workers whose pay and
conditions were covered by collective bargaining in 1979,have gone from
81% in Scotland to 23%.

(7) Trade Union membership in
Scotland now stands at 32.3% of workers, in Sweden that figure is 69%

These are fascinating
statistics, and demonstrate the real challenges the country faces, and the STUC
should be thanked for facilitating these events.

It does however reveal key
weaknesses in the Better Together armoury. As John McInally of the PCS
put it.........."if No means more cuts, austerity, and more privatisation then
Scotland will leave the UK. “ As Ed Miliband has just confirmed that a
future Labour government in Westminster would still sing from the same austerity
hymn sheet that hits the poorest hardest then what was a concern has just
become a reality – a No vote means more of the same with NO possibility of
change. That is only tip of the iceberg – and I’ll address that in a future
blog post, but at the moment it’s sad to reflect how far the Labour party has
moved away from its roots and fails to recognise the opportunities for real
change through supporting workers rights and building a new dynamic in an
independent Scotland.

The key message that trade
union activists recognise is that employment law affects pay, conditions, and
the wider economy including welfare. A Fair Work Commission, and a National
Convention on Employment and Labour Relations would be a good place to start on
addressing these challenges. That opportunity is there to be grasped, and
increasingly many people are participating in shaping and discussing what makes
a Just Scotland and what is our Common Weal and thinking outside narrow tribal
party interests. A YES vote isn’t a vote for the SNP , it’s a vote for the
possibility of change and for opening the door to new opportunities. A NO vote
is a vote for more of the same diet of austerity and squeezing of public
services that hasn’t served the workers of Scotland well in the past decades.